Is there a question in your presentation? You provide a lot of good links, but then leave us wondering what you actually want to talk about.

But I'll take a guess that you want to find a solution to this very serious criminal activity. Many of those victimized countries have no death penalty and don't make the punishment harsh enough to discourage that kind of crime. It's also a multi national criminal activity which makes it very hard for local law inforcement to be effective in combating it. Next, it's people with influance and money that make it profitable and they are very hard to find and prosicute when caught.

In the US we have a similar problem with drugs and multi national cartels. So far none of the countries most affected just don't seem to have the will to do what's needed to stop it.

How do you stop it? You have to take the money out of play, by doing whatever is necessary. Anybody that's caught owning a slave gets an automatic death penalty. Public and slow would be my recommendation. Make everyone thinking about making a buck or owning their own slave think twice about getting anywhere near that business.

But I'll take a guess that you want to find a solution to this very serious criminal activity. Many of those victimized countries have no death penalty and don't make the punishment harsh enough to discourage that kind of crime.

Since majority of those victims are trafficked to so called developed countries, their governments suppose to be completely responsible for everything that happens on their territory, even if some people are kept on their territory involuntarily. What is concerning to concrete propositions I think there could be such as: 1) Bringing all prostitution out of shadow and issuing biometric electronic ID's for each prostitute. All brothels should be legalized and taking under control of government. Presence of legal documents and valid biometric ID's should be constantly monitored. 2)Introducing life term sentences for those who is engaged in human trade without probation possibility and simplifying procedure of witnessing. 3)Creation of serious protection programs for victim witnesses. 4) Introducing criminal punishments for those people who are clients of illegal prostitutes. And harsh penalty for those clients who use services of sexual slaves. Client suppose to go only in government controlled brothels and verify presence of legal ID in prostitutes.

That would be a good start. But like I said none of these countries have the will to stop it. Politicians are afraid of being voted out of office for supporting unpopular solutions and the criminals have enough money to get anyone elected or defeated in any of the democratic countries including the US.

That would be a good start. But like I said none of these countries have the will to stop it. Politicians are afraid of being voted out of office for supporting unpopular solutions

Do you believe that number of people who deliberately want to use services of sexual slaves is so high that they will seriously influence elections outcome?

They only have to concentrate on a few selected politicians that could be the most trouble. Once the example has been made the weaker politicians won't want to take the chance. How long have we in the US been fighting a losing fight against drugs? Then we keep doing the same thing expecting a different result. Now every city in the US has a sizable gang problem and we have the largest prison population of any nation on this planet. Do you see anything new happening in the foreseeable future that might help with this problem. When's the last time you've seen a politician run on a platform that supports legalized prostitution?

Anybody that's caught owning a slave gets an automatic death penalty. Public and slow would be my recommendation.

I have no obligations against of such proposition. Especially if we are sure that a mob is really guilty.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for penalties that would really help control the problem. But I do think international crime syndicates might end up being the most important reason for a single world government happening at some future date.

How long have we in the US been fighting a losing fight against drugs?

This is a bit out of theme.

They only have to concentrate on a few selected politicians that could be the most trouble.

What about many politicians supporting it or wide scale people's movement?

Are you kidding me? Look at how long it took to start heading in the right direction with a mild drug like marijuana, and yet the feds are still trying to stamp it out. Try and estimate how much money the bad guys are going to lose if it was legalized in all the states?

The same thing with legalized prostitution. It only changes who gets the money, and the girls do get to make that choice rather than being forced into the business. But no politician will ever get elected who supports legalized prostitution.

The first thing that would need to be done is to educate the public, starting with TV adds. But that takes money and political support. Again it's not going to happen.

But I'll take a guess that you want to find a solution to this very serious criminal activity. Many of those victimized countries have no death penalty and don't make the punishment harsh enough to discourage that kind of crime.

Since majority of those victims are trafficked to so called developed countries, their governments suppose to be completely responsible for everything that happens on their territory, even if some people are kept on their territory involuntarily. What is concerning to concrete propositions I think there could be such as: 1) Bringing all prostitution out of shadow and issuing biometric electronic ID's for each prostitute. All brothels should be legalized and taking under control of government. Presence of legal documents and valid biometric ID's should be constantly monitored. 2)Introducing life term sentences for those who is engaged in human trade without probation possibility and simplifying procedure of witnessing. 3)Creation of serious protection programs for victim witnesses. 4) Introducing criminal punishments for those people who are clients of illegal prostitutes. And harsh penalty for those clients who use services of sexual slaves. Client suppose to go only in government controlled brothels and verify presence of legal ID in prostitutes.

I agree it should be legalized so it can be regulated. However that's a very tough sell in most of the USA because people have strongly held Christian beliefs, and they won't consent to legitimize prostitution in any way, however slight. It's unfortunate, but they're more concerned with the illicit sex than they are with the human victims they could save by legalizing it.

As for life sentences, forced prostitution should be considered two party rape. One man is holding the gun to her head (effectively), and the other is having sex with her. Each single customer should be considered a separate act of rape. If the pimp is making her sleep with 10 people per day, he's committing 10 rapes a day.

Also it should be considered kidnapping to tell a woman she'll be harmed if she tries to leave.

For the clients, a sort of reckless endangerment law should apply if they haven't taken steps to be absolutely certain the sex is voluntary. Just like how accidental murder is "manslaughter", there should be an equivalent law for accidental rape.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

That would be a good start. But like I said none of these countries have the will to stop it. Politicians are afraid of being voted out of office for supporting unpopular solutions

Do you believe that number of people who deliberately want to use services of sexual slaves is so high that they will seriously influence elections outcome?

It's not wanting to use the service. It's jealous wives who worry their husbands will be more likely to use the service if it is legalized.

And also prudish Christian voters.

A side issue in this is that I fear for the future of human genetics if so many beautiful women are not allowed to marry and have children. It's kind of secondary to the suffering, but in the long run those who die today will stay dead, but their genes will be missed generations from now.

I figure that beautiful people are beautiful for a reason. Their genes must be valuable. Such a waste to throw that away for a few bucks, and a few men's momentary entertainment.

It's not wanting to use the service. It's jealous wives who worry their husbands will be more likely to use the service if it is legalized.

And also prudish Christian voters.

A side issue in this is that I fear for the future of human genetics if so many beautiful women are not allowed to marry and have children. It's kind of secondary to the suffering, but in the long run those who die today will stay dead, but their genes will be missed generations from now.

I figure that beautiful people are beautiful for a reason. Their genes must be valuable. Such a waste to throw that away for a few bucks, and a few men's momentary entertainment.

Yes that's true, but what those same wives don't understand is if their husbands want to find a prostitute, it's not much trouble at all. Personally I don't like using prostitutes, legal or otherwise, married or single status.

A side issue in this is that I fear for the future of human genetics if so many beautiful women are not allowed to marry and have children.

This problem doesn't go only to sexual slavery. It seems that some powerful forces are trying to organize society values in a way that beauty woman looking rather for rich man to marry rather than beauty man. Personally during my life I almost didn't heard about examples that beauty woman would marry man for his beauty or some personal kindness. And woman who marry rich men do not prone to have children or more than 1 child because there is nothing personal in such marriage. Why would she want to have more? To be (inherently) rich is not a sign of a high personal qualities and neither of valuable genetic material or even health. But it would be a half a problem if every rich man would have only one beauty woman and she would be his legal wife.

I think what they're really after is not the money, but the status and safety. Eastern European society is getting organized in such a manner that wealthy people are allowed to be abusive toward poor people.

In the USA we fixed that problem with tort laws. I don't think Russia or Ukraine have developed such laws yet, and so naturally their society is unable to respond to the rising inequalities of status that come with differing amounts of wealth. That combined with a police force that accepts bribes, means being rich guarantees the police will arrest whoever you want and turn a blind eye to your own illegal activities.

Basically, money gives you the power of a dictator.

From my personal observations those woman who have university degree such as teachers, doctors, medical nurses, accountants or lawyers are undoubtedly beautier than woman with little education such as professional sales persons, factory workers, warehouse workers, cleaners, mc-Donald workers or lower medical personnel.

Now I know you must be from Eastern Europe. I think you just can't understand how many fat and ugly women there are here in America. Or what it's like when only a very small fraction of the overall population is beautiful. In Ukraine, the ratio of beautiful women to ugly ones is overwhelmingly better than in most places.

That can change. With numbers as high as the numbers you have quoted getting trafficked, clearly the traffickers aren't going to kidnap ugly women. So the ugly ones stay behind and the men that are less successful in life will marry them and have ugly children, while the beautiful ones get trafficked and never are allowed to have children. Or , as you said they may marry rich men and have only one child.

Over just a few generations your beautiful-to-ugly ratio could quickly degenerate until it's only as good a ratio as what we have in the West.

Some people think that beauty is trivial, and all that matters is functionality. That's all well and good, but what is the point in life if we can't have things that inspire us toward greatness? Why work so hard at functional things if the final goal is not to pursue fine arts and aesthetic goodness? What kind of an outlook for the future is it when all we hope to achieve is to merely subsist?

A gene pool like Ukraine's may take centuries to build up, and only decades to destroy. Why do it? Just to solve a temporary crisis?

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

In Ukraine, the ratio of beautiful women to ugly ones is overwhelmingly better than in most places.

Did you visit Ukraine? Or how do you know that? And why exactly Ukrainian woman are beautier than in other places? From what I know Western Europe and especially Germany experienced witch-hunt in Middle Ages and many beauty woman were burnt at the stake for been "witches". Currently I live outside of Eastern Europe, though I have some friends Ukrainians. I'm afraid that beauty draw from Ukraine already started to produce results because younger generation of Ukrainian girls seem to be less beautier than former. Though I'm not sure. Also it is associated with demography crisis. In times of USSR majority of people were capable to survive and had similar living conditions. There were many people with higher education who were able to have 2 children. After USSR collapse many people who worked as engineers, scientists, teachers or doctors were not able to support their families and allow any more children. Those who have more children now are people not associated with intelligent fields and their children do not look very beautiful. So called "Intelligencia" and Slavic people themselves is disappearing class. People say that now Ukrainian cities are crowded with people from Nothern Caucasus and other former Asian USSR republics.

I have noticed this as well. The beautifulness is getting less lately. I had attributed the cause to the sexual slavery issue because Ukraine has only a population of 44 million, but there were reports of women numbering in the hundreds of thousands being exploited annually.

Only a fraction of the 44 million was beautiful women to start with. Some were men. Some were ugly women. Some were simply very old women. The enslavement of so many beautiful women could easily have exhausted the overall supply of them.

I know it's very cold and unhuman to look at people like one looks at a resource. However if we don't start looking at it that way, the resource in question will soon be depleted. Fortunately Ukrainian families already living in the USA have tended to be able to keep their daughters safe. I rarely meet a slavic woman living in Oregon (in the USA) who is not beautiful.

If you live in US, did you ever heard (not in news but from your friends or relatives) that some poor person was able to win a law suit against a rich man or corporation? Again, not in TV channel, but in real life?

It happens quite often. All the time.

When a person is using the tort laws to sue a large corporation, what they are demanding in court is that the corporation must give them a large sum of money.

Many very skillful lawyers are willing to pursue the case without asking for any money up front. Instead, they ask for the person to give them a percentage of the sum of money that gets awarded after they win. So if a person is suing for a million dollars, the lawyer may ask for 10% of that. So if the lawyer wins the case, the lawyer gets 100,000 dollars. If they lose, they get nothing.

Do you see how that puts poor and rich people on an equal footing? Effectively the rich person is paying for the poor person's lawyer, even without intending to do so.

Also, many times people win these cases and it is not reported. The rich person may offer to pay the poor person a slightly smaller amount of money to withdraw the case. I've known two different people who settled their law suits in this manner. They both bought cars with the money.

Last edited by kojax; June 23rd, 2013 at 05:41 AM.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

I rarely meet a slavic woman living in Oregon (in the USA) who is not beautiful.

So how often you meet them? There should be plenty of Slavic people in your place. And how do you know they are Slavic? Far not all immigrants from former USSR are Slavic. If they could speak some Russian it doesn't mean they are Slavic.

Good point. I only notice whether they speak Russian or not. However most of the ones whom I asked about it said they were Ukrainians. Actually they just say "Russian" at first, but later on if I ask specifically where in Russia, they give me a city from Ukraine as the answer. I think it's weird that they don't just say Ukraine is their origin, but I think they expect that most Americans will be too ignorant to know the difference between Ukraine and Russia, so it's easier to just say they are Russian.

Fortunately Ukrainian families already living in the USA have tended to be able to keep their daughters safe.

Unfortunately only small amount of ethnical Ukrainian immigrants are legal. Some sources estimate that in the last 20 years up to 8 millions of Ukrainian citizens left their country. I'm afraid that only small amount of them could be legal immigrants (especially among ethnic Ukrainians) because even Canada which accepts more immigrants than any other "developed" country didn't accept more than 10 thousands of Ukrainians a year in the last decades. Usually it comes to 2-3 thousands a year. The father fate of majority of those millions of illegal immigrants is practically unknown. For example Portugal alone was estimated to have up to 1 million of Ukrainians, majority of them without statute.“Suitcase Mood”: Why Ukrainians Are Moving Abroad · Global Voices Currently Southern Europe is experience crisis, but strangely that Ukrainians are NOT returning to Ukraine in large numbers. Greece, Spain and Italy also suppose to had large number of Ukrainians. Well if some people were sliced for their body parts or used for similar purposes than hardly somebody will know it in foreseeable future. There is also strange cases reported when Ukrainians who made LEGAL immigration to developed countries experience some strange manipulations, brainwashing etc

The second generation is pretty much always legal in the USA. According to the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution, anyone born on American land is automatically a full American citizen. I've heard there are some exceptions for "anchor babies" but I don't think this exception gets applied to Eastern European people very often.

There's a fairly large Eastern European immigrant population in Portland, Oregon where I live nearby. The government has started printing literature in Russian as a third common language after English and Spanish. Of course compared to the number of Mexican immigrants Eastern European immigrants are not so numerous.

A good place to go to meet Eastern European people socially is at the Sunset Mall. Lots of people who can speak in Russian go there. Even I know one of the shops is owned by people who speak Russian.

.

I've known two different people who settled their law suits in this manner. They both bought cars with the money.

Wondering. Could you give more details on what was the case of lawsuit and whom the sued?

Let's see. I don't think their lawsuits were just, but they won. One was a girl in my secondary school who injured herself during cheer leading practice. She sued the school district for carelessness. Another was a girl who was my close friend (but not girlfriend) - she had complications during a pregnancy and blamed the hospital for carelessness.

I have a third friend who is presently pursuing a law suit against a trucking company because his health was damaged by a carbon monoxide leak in his truck while he was working for them. I think his claim is probably just, but he hasn't won his case yet. He hasn't lost it yet either. So far he hasn't needed to pay any money to his lawyer, because his lawyer is working off of percentage like I mentioned earlier.

The tort laws allow you to sue government just as much as private interests. I think this is one reason why the police are so well behaved here. They know their whole department can get sued for the actions of one police officer. It would reduce their budget and force them to fire some people, so the police officer who screws up would be effectively ruining other police officers' careers. Certainly those other police officers won't want to make the situation worse by trying to plant evidence or something.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

The tort laws allow you to sue government just as much as private interests. I think this is one reason why the police are so well behaved here. They know their whole department can get sued for the actions of one police officer. It would reduce their budget and force them to fire some people, so the police officer who screws up would be effectively ruining other police officers' careers. Certainly those other police officers won't want to make the situation worse by trying to plant evidence or something.

I had a friend that sued the police. His wife was stopped when she was driving home with their daughter I think she was 7 or 8 at that time. They pulled her out of the car patted her down cuffed her and arrested her because she started complaining about her treatment in front of her daughter. They took her to the police station, and just left the child in the car. They were only 2 or 3 blocks from home, but that's just not something the police should ever do. To add insult to injury they strip searched her in front of a male officer.

This was about 40 years ago, and they accepted an out of court settlement for $10,000.00. I personally think had they gone to court they would have gotten a lot more. But what can you do when you need the money, and the $10,000 was a quick sure thing.

Let's see. I don't think their lawsuits were just, but they won. One was a girl in my secondary school who injured herself during cheer leading practice. She sued the school district for carelessness. Another was a girl who was my close friend (but not girlfriend) - she had complications during a pregnancy and blamed the hospital for carelessness.

I have a third friend who is presently pursuing a law suit against a trucking company because his health was damaged by a carbon monoxide leak in his truck while he was working for them. I think his claim is probably just, but he hasn't won his case yet.

Yes, tracking company is a bit tougher than school district. But did you hear personally about case for example that some woman would sue a millionaire for a sexual harassment for example and won the case? Any poor person would sue somebody rich and powerful and won the case? The examples you provided are mostly relate to insignificant law suits against government institutions.

When I worked for the phone co. and black woman sued the company for discrimination. She claimed her immediate supervisor discriminated against her and won the case. I heard the amount was in the 6 digits and after wards all the mangers treated her with a great deal of respect. She even got a promotion within 6 months of winning the suit.

Let's see. I don't think their lawsuits were just, but they won. One was a girl in my secondary school who injured herself during cheer leading practice. She sued the school district for carelessness. Another was a girl who was my close friend (but not girlfriend) - she had complications during a pregnancy and blamed the hospital for carelessness.

I have a third friend who is presently pursuing a law suit against a trucking company because his health was damaged by a carbon monoxide leak in his truck while he was working for them. I think his claim is probably just, but he hasn't won his case yet.

Yes, tracking company is a bit tougher than school district. But did you hear personally about case for example that some woman would sue a millionaire for a sexual harassment for example and won the case? Any poor person would sue somebody rich and powerful and won the case? The examples you provided are mostly relate to insignificant law suits against government institutions.

It's uncommon for such trials to reach completion. That is to say that it is uncommon for the poor person to lose, and it is uncommon for them to win - both.

Usually if a rich person can see they are likely going to lose, then they surrender before the case reaches completion. It's called "settling out of court". It's where the rich person agrees to pay the money, but asks the poor person to agree not to go and tell their story to the newspapers. Even if the rich person thinks they have a high probability to win the case, most of them won't risk it. They agree to pay out a smaller amount of money, but they still pay something.

However, it's rare for a poor person to interact with rich people at all. I only have a few friends who have ever interacted with a rich person. None of them ever tried to sue the rich person.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

When I worked for the phone co. and black woman sued the company for discrimination. She claimed her immediate supervisor discriminated against her and won the case. I heard the amount was in the 6 digits and after wards all the mangers treated her with a great deal of respect. She even got a promotion within 6 months of winning the suit.

This one case doesn't fall exactly under "weak individual against rich and strong individual" case. Rather it falls under "strong community against weak community" case. And "state social booking" case. Therefore it is not convincing...

It may not be exactly what you are looking for, but it was an example that I personally observed. Many people would not have sued had they been in her same situation. It took a lot of guts for her to do what she did. Basicly she was a non-management worker going up against a big powerful company. Most of us, that knew her and worked with her, thought she didn't have a chance of winning. But if you don't take the chance you will never know, and you won't be a winner.

When I worked for the phone co. and black woman sued the company for discrimination. She claimed her immediate supervisor discriminated against her and won the case. I heard the amount was in the 6 digits and after wards all the mangers treated her with a great deal of respect. She even got a promotion within 6 months of winning the suit.

This one case doesn't fall exactly under "weak individual against rich and strong individual" case. Rather it falls under "strong community against weak community" case. And "state social booking" case. Therefore it is not convincing...

It may not be exactly what you are looking for, but it was an example that I personally observed. Many people would not have sued had they been in her same situation. It took a lot of guts for her to do what she did. Basicly she was a non-management worker going up against a big powerful company. Most of us, that knew her and worked with her, thought she didn't have a chance of winning. But if you don't take the chance you will never know, and you won't be a winner.

I hate to see any type of discrimination, it unfortunately does still exist, but many people who are affected by it are either unaware or unable to do anything about it. There is also this daft idea that you can combat one type of discrimination with another, which I find equally odious. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of intention, because it values one person over that of another. People should be rewarded because they've earned it on merit, not because someone wants to fullfil a requirement or target or just doesn't happen to like someone of a particular race/religion.

People unfortunately use things like affirmative action & (so called) possitive discrimination to justify their own prejudices and driscriminations. The right way to tackle this is for a very strong message and understanding that all discrimination is wrong!
If governments want more people of a particular gender or ethnicity in particular jobs then they should get more of them interested in these positions so that they have a greater chance of producing more top level employees to compete rather than ever lowering entry standards for one group over another.

Everybody needs to say no to any and all discimination where ever they find it, so I have nothing but respect for people like you've mentioned that are indeed brave enough to stand up to it.

When I worked for the phone co. and black woman sued the company for discrimination. She claimed her immediate supervisor discriminated against her and won the case. I heard the amount was in the 6 digits and after wards all the mangers treated her with a great deal of respect. She even got a promotion within 6 months of winning the suit.

This one case doesn't fall exactly under "weak individual against rich and strong individual" case. Rather it falls under "strong community against weak community" case. And "state social booking" case. Therefore it is not convincing...

It may not be exactly what you are looking for, but it was an example that I personally observed. Many people would not have sued had they been in her same situation. It took a lot of guts for her to do what she did. Basicly she was a non-management worker going up against a big powerful company. Most of us, that knew her and worked with her, thought she didn't have a chance of winning. But if you don't take the chance you will never know, and you won't be a winner.

I hate to see any type of discrimination, it unfortunately does still exist, but many people who are affected by it are either unaware or unable to do anything about it. There is also this daft idea that you can combat one type of discrimination with another, which I find equally odious. Discrimination is wrong, regardless of intention, because it values one person over that of another. People should be rewarded because they've earned it on merit, not because someone wants to fullfil a requirement or target or just doesn't happen to like someone of a particular race/religion.

People unfortunately use things like affirmative action & (so called) possitive discrimination to justify their own prejudices and driscriminations. The right way to tackle this is for a very strong message and understanding that all discrimination is wrong!
If governments want more people of a particular gender or ethnicity in particular jobs then they should get more of them interested in these positions so that they have a greater chance of producing more top level employees to compete rather than ever lowering entry standards for one group over another.

Everybody needs to say no to any and all discimination where ever they find it, so I have nothing but respect for people like you've mentioned that are indeed brave enough to stand up to it.

I agree. But it doesn't fit well in the real world.

It's like religion- Ignorant people do not care about "should" or "right." Simple minds like simple answers.

When I worked for the phone co. and black woman sued the company for discrimination. She claimed her immediate supervisor discriminated against her and won the case. I heard the amount was in the 6 digits and after wards all the mangers treated her with a great deal of respect. She even got a promotion within 6 months of winning the suit.

This one case doesn't fall exactly under "weak individual against rich and strong individual" case. Rather it falls under "strong community against weak community" case. And "state social booking" case. Therefore it is not convincing...

I think it would take a lot to convince you.

Instead of looking at the victim winning, you should look at it in terms of the lawyers who do the suing. They're called "ambulance chasers". They're greedy opportunists who go around looking for any government agency, or any rich person, who might maybe be doing something wrong so they can gather evidence and sue them.

However in spite of being greedy opportunists, they also help solve problems that would not otherwise be solved. If they hear of a police force that is planting drugs in a person's house if the person complains about police corruption, a huge swarm of these "ambulance chasers" will migrate into that city, and start laying traps for those police in the hope that they'll be dumb enough to try and plant drugs on their client while they're on camera or otherwise being (secretly) watched.

If the "ambulance chaser" lawyers are able to catch them doing it, they will make the police department pay their client a lot of money. (Which indirectly means they're making the police department pay the lawyer a lot of money - because "ambulance chasers" typically are paid a percentage of the money.)

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

I'm really glad if somebody wins a case against of discrimination. If this discrimination really take place, of course. Or if it is completely groundless. Kojax, honestly I still didn't hear about qualified lawyers who take case with little prepayment in hope get money from some rich person or corporation who is been sued only after case is won. Never heard of it. Could you give me some link about such lawyers? Usually lawyers are not stupid and realise that lawsuit against somebody powerful will take long time and have good chances to be lost because somebody powerful also will hire good lawyers, etc. Therefore they are more likely to look for some rich client who will pay them good money in advance and have better chances to win the case against somebody poor. In any case I do not believe that poor person will be able to get better layer than a rich one or at least the same. Never heard that lawyer are eager to protect the poor.

They are not eager to protect the poor. But if they take a case on consignment their fee can be 30% of any settlement. Some of these cases settle for many millions of dollars and 30% can be quite a haul. As you say lawyers are usually smarter than the average person, and they won't take any case on consignment unless they are convinced they have a winner.

Well, but from what I know lawyers just operate with papers. They cannot do all the job for police in gathering proves and witnesses. How lawyer could even prove that his poor client was a real victim?

Now I know you must be from Eastern Europe. I think you just can't understand how many fat and ugly women there are here in America. Or what it's like when only a very small fraction of the overall population is beautiful. In Ukraine, the ratio of beautiful women to ugly ones is overwhelmingly better than in most places.

I do not disagree that quite many woman in the West are roughly made and colourless. But I hope you do not suppose to make excuse to rapes and sexual slavery on this basis?

Most good expensive lawyers have a team of professionals working for their office. In other words they employ private investigators that can be a bit more thorough than their cop counterparts. At least in their desire to find facts that the police quit looking for, because they have what they think will convict there suspect.

Not sure what you mean by your statement "I do not disagree that quite many woman in the West are roughly made and colourless.". Could you please elaberate a bit?

I'm really glad if somebody wins a case against of discrimination. If this discrimination does really take place, of course. Or if it is completely groundless. Kojax, honestly I still didn't hear about qualified lawyers who take case with little prepayment in hope get money from some rich person or corporation who is been sued only after case is won. Never heard of it. Could you give me some link about such lawyers? Usually lawyers are not stupid and realise that lawsuit against somebody powerful will take long time and have good chances to be lost because somebody powerful also will hire good lawyers, etc. Therefore they are more likely to look for some rich client who will pay them good money in advance and have better chances to win the case against somebody poor. In any case I do not believe that poor person will be able to get better layer than a rich one or at least the same.

A woman working for minimum wage at a rental store gets sexually assaulted by her supervisor. She claims her complaint against him wasn't taken seriously by the company, and sues the company she works for, which is a big company that makes around 100 million dollars a year. The Jury awarded her 98 million dollars. However, there is a legal limit on how much a person can sue for in that state, so she'll only receive 41 million dollars.

"Ambulance Chaser" lawyers don't just blindly accept cases, of course. They make their decision about which case to accept based on how good the person's chance of winning is. They determine how likely it is that their poor client will win based on looking at other similar cases that have been tried in court by other poor people in the same situation. It just so happens that, in the USA, many, many poor people have won such cases, and the lawyers know they will be likely to win also.

If they know that a lot of other poor people have won who were in similar situations, then the lawyers know they have a high probability of winning. They wouldn't take a case that they didn't think they could win.

Never heard that lawyer are eager to protect the poor.

The lawyer isn't trying to be a nice guy/lady. The lawyer helps a poor person because he/she wants to get rich.

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Well, but from what I know lawyers just operate with papers. They cannot do all the job for police in gathering proves and witnesses. How lawyer could even prove that his poor client was a real victim?

Juries are very sympathetic toward the poor. Rich people may have nice lawyers, but poor people have the jury's affection. Sometimes the jury's affection matters more to helping you win than all the money in the world.

I don't how the legal system works where you live, but in the USA the jury makes the decision about who is guilty. The judge cannot overturn that decision even if the judge disagrees.

Most jurors are ordinary, poor, people. So naturally they are more inclined to take the side of the poor victim.

Now I know you must be from Eastern Europe. I think you just can't understand how many fat and ugly women there are here in America. Or what it's like when only a very small fraction of the overall population is beautiful. In Ukraine, the ratio of beautiful women to ugly ones is overwhelmingly better than in most places.

I do not disagree that quite many woman in the West are roughly made and colourless. But I hope you do not suppose to make excuse to rapes and sexual slavery on this basis?

It makes me hate sexual slavery even more.

Sexual slavery will have the same effect as Western Europe's witch trials. Only beautiful women are made into slaves. The slaves are never allowed to be free and get married and raise children. Most of them die in slavery.

The ugly women are left alone, which means they will marry the men who should have married beautiful women, and then they'll have ugly kids with them. Over time, that will change the amount of beautiful women in the world. It is a giant tragedy.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

There's a fairly large Eastern European immigrant population in Portland, Oregon where I live nearby.

From what I know Oregon historically suffered from relatively high unemployment and absence of diversified industrial base. Or is it Intel alone which saves situation? Do you know why Eastern Europeans like to come in Portland? Or maybe it is because Portland is still relatively clean city in comparison to the rest of U.S.? By the way, is Portland really wet?

There's a fairly large Eastern European immigrant population in Portland, Oregon where I live nearby.

From what I know Oregon historically suffered from relatively high unemployment and absence of diversified industrial base. Or is it Intel alone which saves situation? Do you know why Eastern Europeans like to come in Portland? Or maybe it is because Portland is still relatively clean city in comparison to the rest of U.S.? By the way, is Portland really wet?

Oregon's economy hasn't been bad lately. Early in the recession it was doing pretty poorly, but it's come back. The biggest industry is actually tourism. The state is slightly larger than Great Britain, but it has only 3 million people living in it. So tourists come to see the forests and mountains and stuff.

However, I think Eastern European people come here just because everybody will leave them alone and not bother them. Oregon is a very laid back place.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

August 5th, 2013, 03:27 AM

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by Stanley514

I'm really glad if somebody wins a case against of discrimination. If this discrimination really take place, of course. Or if it is completely groundless. Kojax, honestly I still didn't hear about qualified lawyers who take case with little prepayment in hope get money from some rich person or corporation who is been sued only after case is won. Never heard of it. Could you give me some link about such lawyers? Usually lawyers are not stupid and realise that lawsuit against somebody powerful will take long time and have good chances to be lost because somebody powerful also will hire good lawyers, etc. Therefore they are more likely to look for some rich client who will pay them good money in advance and have better chances to win the case against somebody poor. In any case I do not believe that poor person will be able to get better layer than a rich one or at least the same. Never heard that lawyer are eager to protect the poor.

They are not eager to protect the poor. But if they take a case on consignment their fee can be 30% of any settlement. Some of these cases settle for many millions of dollars and 30% can be quite a haul. As you say lawyers are usually smarter than the average person, and they won't take any case on consignment unless they are convinced they have a winner.

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

August 5th, 2013, 03:29 AM

Originally Posted by Stanley514

There's a fairly large Eastern European immigrant population in Portland, Oregon where I live nearby.

From what I know Oregon historically suffered from relatively high unemployment and absence of diversified industrial base. Or is it Intel alone which saves situation? Do you know why Eastern Europeans like to come in Portland? Or maybe it is because Portland is still relatively clean city in comparison to the rest of U.S.? By the way, is Portland really wet?

Yeah. To be quite honest, I think if you asked a random Oregonian whether they'd rather a family of Californians move into their neighborhood, or a family of Eastern European immigrants, - most would choose the Eastern European immigrants.

Last edited by kojax; August 7th, 2013 at 02:20 PM.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

Yes. To be quite honest, I think if you asked a random Oregonian whether they'd rather a family of Californians move into their neighborhood, or a family of Eastern European immigrants, - most would choose the Eastern European immigrants.

That may be true, however I've heard that Oregon is a favorite retirement state for Californians, and maybe that's why they don't want more Californians coming in?

It's hard to say. On a personal level Californians can be somewhat annoying. They act like they've got ADD, always wanting people to stop and pay attention to them. Eastern European immigrants, on the other hand, mostly keep to themselves and don't bother anybody.

I think Californians mistake it for dislike if a person won't stick around and talk for a while after meeting them. But if they'd look around, they might notice that Oregonians aren't too fond of doing that with other Oregonians either.

That and a lot of Californians have the "gansta essay" thing going on, with the pants hanging down around their ankles, walking around with skateboards (even if there's nowhere nearby to skate), and tattoos and stuff. Portland had some very serious gang problems in the 1980's which it solved by simply treating any kind of gang with total suspicion and disdain, forbidding high school kids to wear hats or jackets at school... stuff like that. People don't want that trouble to start up again.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

It's hard to say. On a personal level Californians can be somewhat annoying. They act like they've got ADD, always wanting people to stop and pay attention to them. Eastern European immigrants, on the other hand, mostly keep to themselves and don't bother anybody.

I think Californians mistake it for dislike if a person won't stick around and talk for a while after meeting them. But if they'd look around, they might notice that Oregonians aren't too fond of doing that with other Oregonians either.

That and a lot of Californians have the "gansta essay" thing going on, with the pants hanging down around their ankles, walking around with skateboards (even if there's nowhere nearby to skate), and tattoos and stuff. Portland had some very serious gang problems in the 1980's which it solved by simply treating any kind of gang with total suspicion and disdain, forbidding high school kids to wear hats or jackets at school... stuff like that. People don't want that trouble to start up again.

I doubt if retirees are gang affiliated and they usually have good money to spend and invest in their new home state. I would think very few Californians are into gangs. Actually the gang problem is a national problem. You can't blame any one state for exporting it to their neighbors. I really think it's a case of Oregonians just not wanting any more population than they already have, and while I can sympathize with that, I know it an unrealistic goal or expectation.

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

August 8th, 2013, 01:18 AM

Originally Posted by kojax

Yeah. To be quite honest, I think if you asked a random Oregonian whether they'd rather a family of Californians move into their neighborhood, or a family of Eastern European immigrants, - most would choose the Eastern European immigrants.

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

August 8th, 2013, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by kojax

Yes. To be quite honest, I think if you asked a random Oregonian whether they'd rather a family of Californians move into their neighborhood, or a family of Eastern European immigrants, - most would choose the Eastern European immigrants.

That may be true, however I've heard that Oregon is a favorite retirement state for Californians, and maybe that's why they don't want more Californians coming in?

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

August 8th, 2013, 01:19 AM

Originally Posted by kojax

It's hard to say. On a personal level Californians can be somewhat annoying. They act like they've got ADD, always wanting people to stop and pay attention to them. Eastern European immigrants, on the other hand, mostly keep to themselves and don't bother anybody.

I think Californians mistake it for dislike if a person won't stick around and talk for a while after meeting them. But if they'd look around, they might notice that Oregonians aren't too fond of doing that with other Oregonians either.

That and a lot of Californians have the "gansta essay" thing going on, with the pants hanging down around their ankles, walking around with skateboards (even if there's nowhere nearby to skate), and tattoos and stuff. Portland had some very serious gang problems in the 1980's which it solved by simply treating any kind of gang with total suspicion and disdain, forbidding high school kids to wear hats or jackets at school... stuff like that. People don't want that trouble to start up again.

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

August 8th, 2013, 01:20 AM

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by kojax

It's hard to say. On a personal level Californians can be somewhat annoying. They act like they've got ADD, always wanting people to stop and pay attention to them. Eastern European immigrants, on the other hand, mostly keep to themselves and don't bother anybody.

I think Californians mistake it for dislike if a person won't stick around and talk for a while after meeting them. But if they'd look around, they might notice that Oregonians aren't too fond of doing that with other Oregonians either.

That and a lot of Californians have the "gansta essay" thing going on, with the pants hanging down around their ankles, walking around with skateboards (even if there's nowhere nearby to skate), and tattoos and stuff. Portland had some very serious gang problems in the 1980's which it solved by simply treating any kind of gang with total suspicion and disdain, forbidding high school kids to wear hats or jackets at school... stuff like that. People don't want that trouble to start up again.

I doubt if retirees are gang affiliated and they usually have good money to spend and invest in their new home state. I would think very few Californians are into gangs. Actually the gang problem is a national problem. You can't blame any one state for exporting it to their neighbors. I really think it's a case of Oregonians just not wanting any more population than they already have, and while I can sympathize with that, I know it an unrealistic goal or expectation.

I'm hoping that this discussion of Californians and Oregonians is not lost on Stanley. Clearly both groups are American, and share a common border. But for some reason Oregonians treat Californians like unwanted refugees. I can't say "economic refugees" because I'm not really sure that California's economy is really and worse than Oregon's. It might actually be a better economy, if anything. And the Californians who move up here usually aren't the poorer ones either.

Just those small differences in their culture annoy Oregonians. The bigger differences between an Eastern European immigrant and an Oregonian don't bother Oregonians, but the small differences between a Californian and an Oregonian do.

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

August 13th, 2013, 01:37 AM

Originally Posted by kojax

I'm hoping that this discussion of Californians and Oregonians is not lost on Stanley. Clearly both groups are American, and share a common border. But for some reason Oregonians treat Californians like unwanted refugees. I can't say "economic refugees" because I'm not really sure that California's economy is really and worse than Oregon's. It might actually be a better economy, if anything. And the Californians who move up here usually aren't the poorer ones either.

Just those small differences in their culture annoy Oregonians. The bigger differences between an Eastern European immigrant and an Oregonian don't bother Oregonians, but the small differences between a Californian and an Oregonian do.

Interesting analysis.

I, a native of San Francisco and been in Humboldt for well 1977.....(imported like a fine wine) lived in Oregon two years in a row.

For 7 weeks and for 3 months.

I lived in Portland and had now problems, but the smaller areas, *chuckle*.

The Californians who move up there have a lot more money than anyone in most of Oregon does. That is a fact. Oregon is NOT a wealthy state and has been struggling for many years.

I love Portland. I try to go up every year to visit with friends and directors. Great city.

However, if you go there, and are from California and go for a job, and it is you or a native of Oregon.....I'll bet you 50 that you don't get it! (except in theatre0 They equate California with Southern Cali, and Northern, Central and Southern Cali aren't the same in any way shape or form.

The bigger differences between an Eastern European immigrant and an Oregonian

Which exactly differences? And people from which countries are perceived in Oregon as Eastern Europeans?

Maybe I should just say "people who can speak Russian as a native language."

And I have to admit I'm not sure whether the cultural differences are all that big. I've met some Russian speaking ladies who wear an interesting scarf on their heads. Never asked them about it. Not sure if it's religious or traditional.

People from any part of the former Soviet Union usually just say they're "Russian". But sometimes I ask them specifically where and they tell me a city in Ukraine or Georgia or somewhere like that.

But the sole basis for the perception is if they either

A) - Have a strong Russian accent.

or

B) - Actually speak in Russian when conversing with other people from their home.

or

C) - They tell me they're Russian.

I like to think that any one of those three clues would be a pretty strong indicator, especially B and C.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

August 14th, 2013, 11:21 PM

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Maybe I should just say "people who can speak Russian as a native language."

Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians, Estonians and people of Balkans are regarded in U.S. as Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans or something else?

I've met some Russian speaking ladies who wear an interesting scarf on their heads. Never asked them about it. Not sure if it's religious or traditional.

I think that majority of legal immigrants in U.S. who speak Russian are neither Christians or Muslims unless they are Armenians who are mostly Christians.

Actually speak in Russian when conversing with other people from their home.

I think it is a wrong tendency to confuse native language and ethnicity, and even abusive sometimes, for example what English people would feel if some people from Australia who have green colour of skin and who's native language is some dialect of English whould be referred in Russia as "the English" and their gangs as "the English mafia"...

Many parts of Eastern European countries, have their own form of dialect. One region to another doesn not say things the same way. Slovenia differs from Croatia, Serbia, Dalmatia, Montenegro.......though they do understand each other.

Maybe I should just say "people who can speak Russian as a native language."

Poles, Czechs, Hungarians, Romanians, Estonians and people of Balkans are regarded in U.S. as Western Europeans, Eastern Europeans or something else?

I don't think most Americans know the difference. Maybe the government has an official position, but most Americans don't know the difference between any two countries that used to be behind the iron curtain. I'm sure that bothers people who are from Poland, or other places that are closer to the Western end of the curtain.

Rest assured, it's just plain ignorance. No malice is intended.

Actually speak in Russian when conversing with other people from their home.

I think it is a wrong tendency to confuse native language and ethnicity, and even abusive sometimes, for example what English people would feel if some people from Australia who have green colour of skin and who's native language is some dialect of English whould be referred in Russia as "the English" and their gangs as "the English mafia"...

American, Canadians, and Australians are all predominantly of the same ethnicity. What few differences may exist are virtually impossible to distinguish.

Most Americans don't even know who their own ancestors are. Racial distinctions are down to "White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, maybe Italian.". Nobody bothers to make any closer distinctions than that. If you ask a light skinned American whether their ethnicity is "German", "English", "Scananavian", or "Eastern European" - there's about a 50% chance they can't tell you because honestly don't know. I'm talking about full grown adults, who have never once in their life bothered to find out which particular lineage they come out of.

Even worse, most people here have mixed lineages anyway. So even if they know, they'd have to tell you they were 25% one thing, 45% another thing, and maybe 5% something else..... etc.....

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

August 16th, 2013, 01:03 AM

Originally Posted by Stanley514

Many parts of Eastern European countries, have their own form of dialect. One region to another doesn not say things the same way. Slovenia differs from Croatia, Serbia, Dalmatia, Montenegro

Feeling of national identity is good but why to concentrate on differences between Slavic people so much?..

Most likely because my mother was born and raised there, my father's parents were born and raised there, I grew up at Slovenian Hall in San Francisco, and they make it very clear that there are differences. I do not know WHY it is so important, other than that it probably determined where a person was from in the region, because they said, (example) honor as honor and the other region would say something slightly different.

I remember my Mother saying, "Oh they are from so and so, because we don't use that word."

SEATTLE — A woman described as a princess in the Romanian royal family was arrested in Oregon as part of a sweep of a cockfighting ring that allegedly held "derbies" staged by her and her husband at their ranch, federal prosecutors said.

Maybe the government has an official position, but most Americans don't know the difference between any two countries that used to be behind the iron curtain. I'm sure that bothers people who are from Poland, or other places that are closer to the Western end of the curtain.

Do you really think that been behind the "Iron Curtain" is so important for definition as an Eastern European? Many Poles now maintain this idea too. But in reality Poles and Czech were regarded in Western countries as an Eastern Europeans long before the Cold War.

Prior to the Cold War, Americans really didn't interact with Eastern Europe very much. There isn't much of a cultural memory of them prior to that.

Polish people were probably treated a lot worse than the others, though. I remember hearing "Pollock" jokes as a child from other children, even though at the time I had no idea what a "Pollock" was. I don't think you'd want to hear those jokes if you are Polish.

However now as an adult I think Polish people are awesome, if only just because CD Projekt Red is in Warsaw, and I really like their "The Witcher" video game.

I think on another thread you were asking what is the best industry for Eastern Europe to break into? The entertainment industry. So far so good.

For example, how would explain the following fact?:___________ Immigration Act of 1924
Congressional opposition was minimal.

Proponents of the Act sought to establish a distinct American identity by favoring native-born Americans over Southern and Eastern Europeans in order to "maintain the racial preponderance of the basic strain on our people and thereby to stabilize the ethnic composition of the population". Reed told the Senate that earlier legislation "disregards entirely those of us who are interested in keeping American stock up to the highest standard – that is, the people who were born here". Southern and Eastern Europeans, he believed, arrive sick and starving and therefore less capable of contributing to the American economy, and unable to adapt to American culture.

So restrictive were the new quotas for immigration from Southern and Eastern Europe, that in 1924 there were more Italians, Czechs, Yugoslavs, Greeks, Lithuanians, Hungarians, Poles, Portuguese, Romanians, Spaniards, Chinese, and Japanese that left the United States than those who arrived as immigrants.

From this it is clearly seen that in the beginning of 20-th century Poles and Czechs were regarded as an Eastern Europeans, secondary people to ``American identity``.

That is true. But you have to remember that in 1924 Black people were required to drink from different water fountains than white people. It was a whole different time in American history from the present.

Also it looks like the whole reason for preferring Western European immigrants was the same reason as today: they didn't want economic refugees.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

August 16th, 2013, 11:45 PM

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

In the current news

SEATTLE — A woman described as a princess in the Romanian royal family was arrested in Oregon as part of a sweep of a cockfighting ring that allegedly held "derbies" staged by her and her husband at their ranch, federal prosecutors said.

SEATTLE — A woman described as a princess in the Romanian royal family was arrested in Oregon as part of a sweep of a cockfighting ring that allegedly held "derbies" staged by her and her husband at their ranch, federal prosecutors said.

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

August 17th, 2013, 12:03 AM

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

In the current news

SEATTLE — A woman described as a princess in the Romanian royal family was arrested in Oregon as part of a sweep of a cockfighting ring that allegedly held "derbies" staged by her and her husband at their ranch, federal prosecutors said.

Oregon is notorious for that stuff in certain "areas". There are some places if I drive up to Portland, I simply do not stop.

I've only just traveled through Oregon and rest stops don't give a very complete picture of it. But I do know the city of Portland isn't all that different from other cities when it comes to crime and gangs.

Resident of Big Island of Hawai'i since 2003, and in Bayside, Ca. since 1981, Humboldt since 1977

Posts

12,596

August 17th, 2013, 12:22 AM

Originally Posted by Bad Robot

Originally Posted by babe

Oregon is notorious for that stuff in certain "areas". There are some places if I drive up to Portland, I simply do not stop.

I've only just traveled through Oregon and rest stops don't give a very complete picture of it. But I do know the city of Portland isn't all that different from other cities when it comes to crime and gangs.

I studied at a couple classes up there at PAC. Two winters in a row and lived there.

I personally love Portland. There are always areas in any city you kind of steer clear of, but I walked at night back from class sometimes and felt very safe.

Interesting topic thread. You have some good ideas on how to combat and deter human trafficking, having said that, I think it starts with the community - at least here in the West. HT has become a growing problem in the city I live in. I think some of the first steps have to do with activating communities - getting them to realise that HT is a serious problem, and initiating an increase in awareness of the issue. An uninformed community is a complacent one.

Perhaps another way of reducing the incidence of HT is by increasing the legitimate services available to refugees, and immigrants that are falling through the cracks of bureaucracy. Refugees are frequently taken advantage of by those that are smuggling them out of a country. Notably, North Korean defectors are often forced into prostitution by the Chinese gangs that disingenuously offer their services. Creating multi-lateral organizations that will assist in escapes, briefly house, and assist individuals in finding countries that will accept them under refugee status would damage the infrastructure and supply of the HT market.

Unfortunately you can't search by using the person's nationality as a starting point..... which makes it a huge pain. Instead you just have to check each country to see if the visa will be valid. For example, I decided to check and see if a person from Ukraine could visit Peru, and sure enough Ukraine is on the list of nationalities who can freely visit.

It would be great if some international charity would set up a shelter in some country that has liberal immigration policies. Maybe a place where the women can stay while they're waiting to give testimony against their captors, where it would be very difficult to assassinate them.

Otherwise organized crime will always be able to get away with trafficking. It's too hard to stop them without any witnesses willing to testify.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

Unfortunately you can't search by using the person's nationality as a starting point..... which makes it a huge pain. Instead you just have to check each country to see if the visa will be valid. For example, I decided to check and see if a person from Ukraine could visit Peru, and sure enough Ukraine is on the list of nationalities who can freely visit.

It would be great if some international charity would set up a shelter in some country that has liberal immigration policies. Maybe a place where the women can stay while they're waiting to give testimony against their captors, where it would be very difficult to assassinate them.

Otherwise organized crime will always be able to get away with trafficking. It's too hard to stop them without any witnesses willing to testify.

What is interesting to know for me: is there any attempt to create a society of people who suffered from slavery? For example in East. Europe where should be hundreds of thousands of people who suffered from it? Or most of them afraid their slave-owners so much and want to keep their past hidden?

What is interesting to know for me: is there any attempt to create a society of people who suffered from slavery? For example in East. Europe where should be hundreds of thousands of people who suffered from it? Or most of them afraid their slave-owners so much and want to keep their past hidden?

By a "society", do you mean like an organization? Where people who have suffered from slavery join together to fight slavery? That would be great if it were started.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.

A smart American entrepreneur would organize sex boats. Get a big cruise boat, and ladies wishing to join the expedition as prostitutes could board the vessel from their native country and the boat would carry them to just outside the borders of the USA (or other wealthier nations), and then another boat brings customers from that nation onto the boat for an evening of revelry.

All legal because the actual prostitution is happening in international waters. But unfortunately it would be poorly regulated. The boat owner would need to voluntarily invite international law enforcement or UN observers or something to prove there was no coercion,so it could get a reputation as a safe place for voluntary sex workers to work at.

There is a place in the USA called "Bunny Ranch". It is pretty famous, and supposedly ladies from all over the USA fly there on the weekends to work as prostitutes, and make pretty good money because only very good looking women are allowed to work there. Which in turn allows the owner to charge high prices and pay the women quite a lot.

Once a business like this has a good reputation as a safe place to work, and one that pays them well, it's always easy to find attractive ladies to work there. Even easier if they recruit from a country like Ukraine, where there are more attractive women to begin with.

Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.